I forgot to add, that the mechanism that could work for managing the votes for the various artists etc, to ensure it is not riggid, would be to use the Bitcoin engine, which i believe some places are using for managing the electronic votes at election time, to ensure no tampered votes, and only valid votes are counted. (talk)02:58, 18 January 2012

I understand the problem for which you have proposed such solution, but all monetary interests aside, I respectfully feel that it is important for the arts, music and motion picture, as their own entities and free of the popular vote. Artists don't nescesarily target the most mainstream views and I belive that is why it they are so critical to society. (talk)04:03, 18 January 2012

This is really not as crackpot as may seem on first reading. These bills are designed to fight all online content piracy including that of television programs. Here in the UK we have the BBC which is funded by a flat tax (which we call the license fee) on everyone who owns a television. From this fee is funded excellent news coverage, documentries and drama free to watch by anyone with a television or BBC i-player enabled device. We even have a history of partially public broadcast funded film making with our Channel Four via its Film Four brand-which used a mix of revenues from advertising, cinema release and levies on the other commercial broadcasters to produce films, including if memory is correct (I don't have wikipedia to look it up) Slumdog Millionaire.

However the BBC has a lot of tradition, corporate culture and public support behind it so that it can avoid being manipulated into the mouth piece or tool of any one interest group (though some climate change sceptics and right wing zealots may disagree). Without an established tradition behind it I can see such a fund as you suggest being manipulated if not by governments than by special interest groups. With your Bitcoin suggestion I can just imagine a scenario where massed Christian pastors urge their flocks to "vote" for some suitably Christian movies.

KTo288 (talk)19:56, 18 January 2012

I fully agree, if any change were to take place, it would have to be given quite a bit of thought, to ensure that you don't get mainstream media being controlled by christian pastors urging their flocks on what to "vote" for. The thing is though, there is nothing stopping that from happening now, mnedia companies, make money buy selling songs and albums via various mediums. there is nothing stopping those christian pastors from telling their flock to not buy the latest marilyn manson song, therefor meaning less money for the production company.

But I do believe if enough thought is given to it, like the BBC, but allowing us to have some mechanism for having a voice on the music or movies we like, it could work.

I just think there needs to be a better way of ensuring information is available to the world, piracy laws protect the people investing in creating the information, but limit the availability of that information, and yet without piracy laws, you lose people wanting to invest all their money in creating something that is available to everyone, but that investor will never see a dime of their cash back.

I know I certainly can't afford to pay $5000 to have a production company record a song for me, and then me give it away. I could do it as a gimik for publicity, but not as a long term solution, otherwise who will pay rent, buy my food, if I am making no money from recording songs. I will need to get a fulltime job doing something else, meaning no music production. So maybe the solution put forward above is not the complete answer, but it could be a step in the right direction, if enough people put their heads together and work out all the pit falls and come upw ith something that actually ensures money is available for artists to record new songs, whilst at the same time, providing that music freely to the world.

i thinkt he same could be applied to a lot of things though. pharmaceutical companies invest millions in researching new drugs, and generally only drugs that are going to provide them with highest return on investment, and after discovering the drug, they hide the formular away behind copy right laws, so no other pharmaceutical companies can reproduce it, therefore limiting access to cures to those who can afford it. Yet another way for the rich to keep themsevles rich and keep the poor always wanting... Get rid of copy right laws, and allow funding into research and development of new drugs to be funded through a single global entity, with all information relating to that drug and the research around it, to be publicly available from day 1, each year they reapply for funding, and if their work is not funded for a second year, it doesn't mean the information is lost, it may well be used by another research intiative during another funding run.

this approach to managing the creation of information could well annoy a lot of large corporates, because they will then be limited in the means by which they can make money from information. It doesn't mean that they wont charge us an arm and a leg to actually buy the medicine using the publicly available formula, but what it will mean, is that it will be more competitive, as each manaufacturer will have access to the same information, and it will then become about who can do it the cheapest and win the contract to mass produce these drugs. (talk)20:56, 18 January 2012